Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv6 dual stacking and route tables
From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner () cluebyfour org>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 15:27:34 -0500 (EST)

On Fri, 3 Feb 2012, -Hammer- wrote:

"If you have a specific route to a AAAA record but a less specific route to an A record the potential is for the trip to take longer."

That was the premise of the thread. I swear I googled it for 20 minutes to link before giving up. Anyway, can anyone who's been thru this provide any opinions on why or why not it is important to accept the full IPv6 table AND the full IPv4 table? I have the hardware to handle it I'm just not sure long term what the reasoning would be for or against. Again, I'm an end customer. Not a carrier. So my concern is (A) my Internet facing applications and (B) my users who eventually will surf IPv6.

We currently take full v4 and v6 routes, however we do not yet have end-users officially on v6 (users doing their own 6to4 tunnels and stuff like Teredo notwithstanding), so I don't have any experience with the A/AAAA resolution asymmetry you're describing.

jms


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]